He's more suitable than Petraeus, that's for sure. Because:(1) Petraeus wields too much military influence, which should be kept separate from the CIA.(2) He's got more experience with the CIA--which can be good or bad, depending on your view.

LagniappeI don't understand why politicians would filibuster against Brennan but not Petraeus on the grounds of CIA drone strikes. Petraeus oversaw that program too... (I'm not sure if Rand Paul has a history of criticizing Petraeus though).

Brennan has a dark history too (torture, overseeing it perhaps?).

ProblemRisk of groupthink increases with having Brennan on board, since he's so agreeable with Obama and his drone strike policy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:He's more suitable than Petraeus, that's for sure. Because:(1) Petraeus wields too much military influence, which should be kept separate from the CIA.(2) He's got more experience with the CIA--which can be good or bad, depending on your view.

LagniappeI don't understand why politicians would filibuster against Brennan but not Petraeus on the grounds of CIA drone strikes. Petraeus oversaw that program too... (I'm not sure if Rand Paul has a history of criticizing Petraeus though).

Brennan has a dark history too (torture, overseeing it perhaps?).

ProblemRisk of groupthink increases with having Brennan on board, since he's so agreeable with Obama and his drone strike policy.

My idyllic interpretation is that Senators Paul (and some other guys apparently) are trying to make constituents of the various senators aware of the issue so that the constituents may influence their respective senators prior to a vote.

My realistic interpretation is that Senator Paul is trying to differentiate himself from other Republicans for a run at the White House in 2016.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I miss woodruff at this point...Personally, I don't think we know enough to make a decision on him. Gotta bow to the representatives on this.

Or you could read up about it and make an informed decision instead.

EDIT - Sorry, can't help myself. This is the issue.

At some point in the last couple of years the Justice Department determined that it had a legal basis to kill Americans in other countries if they were suspected of being terrorists. This determination could be made by the president and one of his designated agents without any judicial or Congressional input.

When questioned as to whether the same proposal would exist with respect to domestic drone usage, the Justice Department responded with, essentially, we wouldn't rule it out.

When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.

The question for you, Player, is do you care? What if you were sitting in the Houston coffee shop? Would you care then?

Welcome to the point of no return. This is a world war on terror and everyone and everything is in the cross hairs. No more constitution to defend US citizens. This is now the Government against any and all who are not in line with their policies. Do you feel safer to speak freely of the government or are you gonna be on the terror list in the future for criticism? This government is fucked.

The US government is most likely on the road to ruin, but I'm an optimist about these things!

Imagine if the Executive actually did kill a suspected terrorist and US citizen within the US. People would go ape shit, which in turn would likely impose costs on the relevant politicians. Perhaps, we'd get a significant change in the make-up of politics in general...

If that doesn't happen, then the long-term problems of deficit spending will become less 'long-term' over the years. Politics will become more contentious as the citizens are forced to pay higher taxes and/or receive lower benefits.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't understand why politicians would filibuster against Brennan but not Petraeus on the grounds of CIA drone strikes.

TGD answered it for you:

thegreekdog wrote:When questioned as to whether the same proposal would exist with respect to domestic drone usage, the Justice Department responded with, essentially, we wouldn't rule it out.

When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I miss woodruff at this point...Personally, I don't think we know enough to make a decision on him. Gotta bow to the representatives on this.

Or you could read up about it and make an informed decision instead.

EDIT - Sorry, can't help myself. This is the issue.

At some point in the last couple of years the Justice Department determined that it had a legal basis to kill Americans in other countries if they were suspected of being terrorists. This determination could be made by the president and one of his designated agents without any judicial or Congressional input.

When questioned as to whether the same proposal would exist with respect to domestic drone usage, the Justice Department responded with, essentially, we wouldn't rule it out.

When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.

The question for you, Player, is do you care? What if you were sitting in the Houston coffee shop? Would you care then?

Actually, I am aware of the points you bring up. The thing is I don't think that is all there is to it, and I don't think my worrying about this particular issue is the best way to spend my time.

To be specific, I am concerned about drones..but whomever is put into this position won't be the primary factor in how they are used. I look to the courts and legislator for any fixes. The hoopla over the defense secretary is all for show.

That said, I did admire R.P....too bad his bladder could not hold any longer.

“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain

Yes, god forbid he gets college kids caring about this shifty shit you fuckers do.

Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.

Then you're a fucking idiot apparently.

“I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program,” he said.

thegreekdog wrote:My realistic interpretation is that Senator Paul is trying to differentiate himself from other Republicans for a run at the White House in 2016.

That's not too hard to do.

The old time Republican politicians are balking at Paul's actions. Denouncing them actually. Lindsey Graham said this about whether or not an Administration has the power to kill American's on American soil without trial-

Lindsey Graham wrote:“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,”

Oh really? Eric Holder seems to think that the President has the legal means to murder American's with drone strikes even on American soil. -

Of course, I don't care what the circumstances are, if the President orders a drone strike to kill a suspect on American soil, he, and all those involved with the strike, should immediately be arrested and charged with murder.

There is no way that's ok to do. Murder American citizens without the benefit of even a trial is disgusting. But it's ok so long as those murdered are simply labeled "terrorists".

In order to fly drones over the United States, one requires an FAA license. In the last twelve months a search of every license provided to fly drones over the United States, over half of them have been obtained by the US military. That in itself is bad enough, but the CIA are the ones who are using the drones to bomb "terrorists", including American citizens overseas. I wonder how many licenses they have gotten? And the very guy who is going to be in charge of those drone bombings has behind him the full authority of the US government that says it's ok to use them on American citizens on American shores.

The Lindsey Grahams and any other politician (especially ones that don't think that question even needs to be raised) should get their heads out of their asses and start understanding that such things are truly UnAmerican. Especially considering that drones strikes tend to kill not only the target, but also anyone else who might happen to be around.

“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain

Yes, god forbid he gets college kids caring about this shifty shit you fuckers do.

Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.

Then you're a fucking idiot apparently.

“I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program,” he said.

Yeah, because you're a fucking asshole.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Idiots. But every single Congressman, be they Democrat or Republican should be raising all hell over this instead of just turning a blind eye as pretty much all of them are doing now.

Not now or ever is it all right to kill American citizens without due process. I don't give a crap what it is that they are accused of. If the politicians don't give a crap about the law, then why should the rest of us?

thegreekdog wrote:When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.

No it did not.

Cruz wrote:I want to ask a more specific question: if an individual is sitting quietly at a café in the United States, in your legal judgment does the Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?

...

The person is suspected to be a terrorist. You have abundant evidence he was a terrorist. He was involved in terrorist plots. But, at the moment, he is not pointing a Bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a café. Overseas, the United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they’re walking down a pathway or when they’re sitting at a café. If a US citizen on US soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?

Holder wrote:I would not think that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force. We’d deal with that in a way that we typically deal with a situation like that…

After some back and forth, in which Holder inexplicably refused to say no, he eventually conceded directly that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

It's wrong to kill American citizens overseas with drone strikes as well, without a trial or due process. Just because an American citizen is overseas doesn't mean that his constitutional protections do not apply. That is, if you are in Mexico, does the US government suddenly not have to have a warrant to search you? Can the US government deny you your right to freedom of speech just because you are not within the borders?The Mexican government might do all those things, and more, but the US government is still bound by the constitution towards her citizens even if those citizens are not within the borders.

It's this apathy towards the killing of Americans overseas without trial that has now born fruit that has the Attorney General now saying that it is legal to drone strike citizens on US soil.

It's not legal. And then what about the collateral damage of the strike, we've ween such effects overseas. In fact, a 14 year old child was killed in one of the drone strikes in Yemen on an American citizen. It was "unfortunate" and the government said they were sorry. Sorry my ass, that's murder and the operator of the drone strike should be tossed straight into prison for it along with those who ordered the strike. The "I was only following orders" isn't a defense as we learned in Nuremburg. They killed a 14 year old child, also an American citizen along with the evil terrorist target who was also an American citizen.Do you even know what it was that he did that got him in the crosshairs of a drone strike?He was inciting people to join the jihad against America.

He wasn't planning any terrorists attacks. He wasn't strapping on any explosives to blow himself up in a crowded market. He was running his freaking mouth like an idiot. And we killed him, his 14 year old son and anyone else who happened to be nearby, all because he was saying things that we didn't like.

f*ck that. Maybe he was a terrorist, but we'll never know for sure, will we? There was no trial or due process at all. So we only have the Administrations word for it. A word that isn't worth the shit I wipe off my ass when I take a dump.

Anyone who justifies this sort of thing is just as evil, just as bloodthirsty, just as foolish as all those supposed terrorists we are fighting.We are steadily giving up our freedom for what? Because we are afraid of terrorists?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel much fear at all from those idiots in the middle east. I get more worry from the scumbags in Washington DC who lie, cheat, steal and piss on the Constitution.

Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

I agree. There is no difference. It should be subject to judicial standards in both circumstances.

Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.

If we changed the word "resistance" to "inquiry," then I'd agree with the italicized, but...

The underlined is not the case because the magnitude differs. With international affairs, (1) the costs of judicial action are more prohibitive/inefficient, and (2) there's the combatant/war justification which lowers the price of drone strikes. Therefore, they (USG: Executive, CIA, US Air Force--to name a few) opt for drone strikes instead of extradition. Rendition and assassination special ops are substitutes but are considered to be more costly than drone strikes--in most cases (e.g. OBL).

So, with this in mind, let's turn to your question, which is still relevant:

Mets wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil?

The differences (to be brief):

(1) LegalThere are legal matters at stake here--namely, (a) due process and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and (b) there is the concern about the undermining of checks and balances when the executive can commit extrajudicial killings. Even if the courts explicitly approve such killings, thus rendering them legal, there's still the concern that the checks and balances of the three branches would have become less counterbalancing. This can be very problematic because a more authoritarian president is not in the spirit of the US Constitution nor should it be acceptable to American society in general.

There's a law against the CIA which prohibits it from operating within the US. Instead, the FBI has jurisdiction, so...

(2) Presence of Substitutes already being used:The FBI already engage in sting operations to capture and prosecute "lone wolves" (i.e. potential terrorists who are not currently part of a terrorist organization yet may commit a terrorist act). So, why use drone strikes when the government is already using 'proper' substitutes?

(3) PriceBasically, it's cheaper to bypass the judicial process and kill people abroad than it is domestically. Here's one example:

Domestically, there's the cost incurred by politicians from an increase in negative public opinion. This allows for the possibility that a change in voter preferences may induce a change in politicians themselves or their policies. In other words, more voters care less about dead innocent civilians and dead terrorists killed by drone strikes in far away lands--than they would about the same kind of deaths within the US.

The relative prices of drone strikes, renditions, and assassinations were already mentioned.

There's the question of 'acceptable' collateral damage. The price of collateral damage of "Unknowns" in Waziristan differs from the potential collateral damage of innocent US citizens. Price here is not just monetary but also psychological--as well as however the relevant decision-makers determine their opportunity costs.

And finally, what is the optimal number of dead terrorists? (What are the marginal costs and benefits of dead terrorists?--i.e. where "optimal" is the Price at which Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost) What is the optimal ratio between dead terrorists and dead innocent civilians? etc.

(3) War Justification/Subversion of the Rule of Law(a) There's plenty of Laws and Acts which approve of killing US citizens without trial. For example, in times of emergency like in Katrina, martial law was imposed, so the military was simply shooting people without holding trials so that 'law and order' could be maintained.

(b) There's the noncombatant v. combatant debate. If domestic terrorists are deemed combatants, they could be labeled as some kind of domestic rebel force; therefore, the government could dig through the hodge-podge of US laws and find whatever justifies 'extrajudicial' killings. This would pose an alarming prospect.

ConclusionThe killing of US citizens via drone strikes domestically and internationally differ in respect to the law, issues of public choice (voter behavior, political reaction), and economics (relative prices, substitutes, etc.). Other differences include an emphasis on the behavior of public officials and elected officials, as well as other concerns which for the sake of 'brevity' won't be mentioned.

Podium SpeechEvery American should be very concerned about the current problems and future prospects of drone strikes. It affects not only the US but also our international neighbors. Particularly alarming is the potential of unintended consequences--specifically "blowback." All of these attacks might be increasing anti-American/anti-Western sentiment which could increase total terrorist attacks.

By failing to uphold the rule of law, internationally, the US may once again find itself providing 'solutions' to problems which were previously caused by the US. Domestically, if the rule of law is not upheld for all US citizens, then the legitimacy of the US state will be marginally diminished, and the possibility of increased social disorder becomes more likely--due to poorly conceived US policies in promoting law and order.